This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by Cassandra

If a person joins the A.A.R.P. or the N.R.A. they do so because they agree with the N.R.A/ AARP 's lobbying positions.

Actually, I would hazard a guess that many of them join because they agree with most of those organizations lobbying positions. Not all. Probably a few join who don't agree at all, however odd that might be.

But, essentially, you are correct.

Originally Posted by Cassandra

That is completely untrue of a corporation. Who is even "speaking" when a corporation pays for an ad to support or attack a candidate? The employee? Certainly not. The Shareholder? Doubtful. Even the C.E.O. or board of directors may well consent to buy ads that run contrary to their personal views and preferences because they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. The Corporations is an artificial legal construct and "political expression' has nothing to do with individuals gathering to express themselves.

Not necessarily. Some employees may agree entirely with the political positions of the corporation they work for.

But also essentially correct.

However, I would argue that as both the A.A.R.P and the N.R.A take political positions which benefit their members, so also do corporations take political positions which benefit their members.

Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You have a hard time understanding the difference between "people" and "corporations".

Holy ****.

Dude, the fact that the 9th amendment refers to "the people" does not mean that everything else in the Constitution is only applicable to the people. This is some basic stuff.

Since you obviously didn't bother to read the thread, I'll do you the favor of linking to a post where this was explained.

Re: Corporate Personhood

Only for people who can't read the constitution... like the 5 republican judges on the SCOTUS.

Because YOU say so?

Is that supposed to be some kind of intelligent argument or are you simply exercising your right?

I'm saying that "corporations" are a boogeyman, and when the "problems" that keeping corporate money out of political advertising are supposed to solve don't actually GET solved, you'll have to find something else to blame, and to outlaw, no doubt.

It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo

1) it was an analogy and a poor one as I noted.

Yes, it was a tangentially relevant analogy.

2) It's not opinion it's FACT. When a sperm fuses with an egg it creates a zygote. A zygote is a single-cell that contains two copies of chromosomes—one copy from each parent. In the week following fertilization, the zygote undergoes rapid cell division and becomes a mass of cells known as a blastocyst. After more cell division, the blastocyst splits in half.

Now you are aware of the fact.

The opinion is whether or not the zygote represents a person. Your opinion is that it does not. His is that it does.

It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo

Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You have a hard time understanding the difference between "people" and "corporations".

You are having a hard time understanding the scope of the Bill of Rights.

What a thing, having a philosophy which requires you to come up with novel ways to diminish the scope of protection it affords.

It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I don't really know what else to say, because you're simply wrong on this. A quote from a layman's explanation of what the Bill of Rights supposedly means does not trump the actual text of the Constitution and years of jurisprudence. The first amendment applies to more than just individuals. If you don't want to take my word for it, take the Supreme Court's:

The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.

They are bat**** insane to believe that a corporation, that is not alive, has no possible way of expressing itself and is not a human, can have rights.

It basic anthropomorphism.

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Where are you getting this from?

GM is nothing but a brand for which a business operates.
GM is not a living person nor can it talk, move, or express emotion.

It can not hire anyone, only a person can hire someone else.

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Again, this doesn't make any sense. The Catholic church is the one paying the salaries of priests. If government passed a law forbidding the expenditure of money on priests, that would be analogous to government passing a law forbidding corporations to spend money on advertising. Using your framework, because neither one is technically a person, they have no rights and those laws would be fine. If you want to say that the individual members of the catholic church are having their freedom of religion infringed by such a law, then you would have to say that the individual members of a corporation would be having their freedom of speech infringed by such a law.

The individuals can say whatever they want but a church and corporation can not.
A church cannot talk, cannot express itself, does not have a brain.

Laws that restrict the establishment of a church which is required for one person to practice religion, infringe on that one person's right to religion.

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

And as explained above, this is incorrect.

Faulty interpretations don't make for good arguments.

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

So your theory is that because you think it would be inefficient, that somehow means they shouldn't be allowed to do it?

That's not it at all, I was just saying that the reasons for grouping are not always more efficient in lobbying for a specific individuals cause.

To be honest this isn't my main objection to corporate personhood.
My biggest problem is the deferment of liability.

Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 01-24-10 at 06:43 PM.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard